Granted, I only skimmed through the article, and overall I agree with, but that headline is a nonsensical statement. This coming from someone who pirates every movie and show that isnât on Disney+. Whether you own, rent, or lend, you still had to pay for access to it. Piracy circumvents that. I donât own the rental car. If I drove off with it, is that not stealing?
There are plenty of ways to justify piracy. Thereâs a few good reasons listed in the article. I do it because switching between a dozen streaming services is too inconvenient. But even putting morality aside, that headline is just plain dumb, itâs illogical.
Driving off with the rental car is a fine analogy if we were comparing this to not returning a DVD you rented.
But this is not that. And that is kind of the point.
Piracy is a breach of contract for sure. The point the author is trying to make is that our current licensing contracts around media are out of touch with the social contract (you pay for something, you get it).
Hence the moral hazard. So companies will flaunt the social contract (like in the case of Sony) with impunity but will get rightous as soon as people flaunt the legal contract. Itâs a double standard, where all the power is in the hands of those with the biggest legal department.
You canât define âtheftâ untill you first define justice. And if consumers and media holders canât even agree to a just system, then why bother categorizing anything as theft at all?
Oh I agree with the article as I already stated in my previous comment, and I hope people read it, because my only argument really is that it has a poor headline. The headline says that taking media that you wouldnât have owned isnât piracy (which is nonsense), the article says that piracy is justified when ownership is as nebulous as it often is with a lot of digital media these days (which I agree with).
The headline says âyouâre told that what youâre doing is buying by the people selling you the media, but thatâs not what youâre actually doing. So, if theyâre lying to you about what youâre buying, then pirating a different thing isnât stealing the thing they are trying to sell you.â
Itâs definitely tongue in cheek and has some hyperbole in it, but that is the gist of the statement.
then pirating a different thing isnât stealing the thing they are trying to sell you.
Maybe not that version of the thing specifically, but itâs still stealing if they ultimately created it and you obtained it ignoring their conditions for sale.
Donât get me wrong, you have a really good point. A lot of times the bootleg version of a good is better than the legal version because of the legal versionâs tos and spyware enforcing them. I just donât see how obtaining the bootleg isnât piracy/stealing. Thereâs good justification for stealing it imo (as a pirate myself), but thatâs all it is, justification. Itâs still stealing.
So I guess Iâm just being pedantic when I say I disagree with you, but realize I see where youâre coming from, and that we basically agree in spirit
The car goes away when you drive it off. Replacing the car would take power to run multiple assembly and formation machines, and resources for each part.
When you download a movie, it doesnât go anywhere, you simply use a miniscule amount of power to make a copy.
No one has lost anything and the product is still available where it was. Copying is not theft. When you steal, you leave one less left.
How many lemmy commenters can make the same false equivalence analogy in one week?
I know, I know, I figured someone was going to bring this up, and personally thatâs part of the reason I justify my own piracy (cause Iâm broke and movie studios arenât), but two things:
The cost of creating, copying, and distributing a good isnât strictly relevant to the transaction of said good. If the original owner doesnât want me to have access to a good without paying for it, and I take it anyway, thatâs stealing. The labor and capital required to create, copy, and distribute that good isnât relevant to that transaction, only my moral justification for stealing it anyway. Which is fine, imo, just be honest with yourself. Youâre stealing, and itâs justified. Stick it to the man
Assuming that it is relevant, making digital media isnât free. I can get away with piracy only because thereâs enough people paying for the media to make it worth it for the studio. At least one other commenter pointed this out, but if everyone pirated, who would be making movies and video games? So to keep the system going, imo, only pirate if you werenât going to buy it anyway - piracy or nothin.
At least one other commenter pointed this out, but if everyone pirated, who would be making movies and video games? So to keep the system going, imo, only pirate if you werenât going to buy it anyway - piracy or nothin.
Youâre missing another option⊠And one that most people seem to continue to purposefully forget. When Netflix first started⊠It was a good product at a worthwhile price. Lots of people gave up pirating. Music was the same thing with Spotify and such services. Piracy is only getting worse again because the companies that âproduceâ the content canât keep their heads out of their asses and the services that cut back on piracy are now worse than what we left originally. As someone who had purchased these services for YEARS⊠Thereâs nothing but greed on their end⊠They canât be mad when people respond with their own form of greed, they made the first move here. They could have continued making money from people who otherwise wouldnât have paid. They chose this path to some extent.
I think my last sentence includes your âmissing optionâ, actually. Take streaming for example, Iâm not paying for 6 different streaming services. I canât, I wonât, and Iâm not going to juggle them every couple months either. So I pirate. Even if for some reason I couldnât pirate their stuff, I just wouldnât watch it. Either way, they donât get my money.
If everyone who would buy a digital product pirates it instead, then itâs clear that they have been harmed by the piracy. This whole âownâ vs ârentâ vs etc argument is completely tangental as is the definition of âstealâ, unless pedantry is the purpose of this post. Itâs clear that piracy can be harmful.
âBut they lost nothing physicalâ is an extremely shallow argument that ignores that not everything with value is physical. If I copy your idea as-is and make a product out of it before you, you can always come up with new ideas, right? Itâs not like you lost something physical. Clearly you havenât been harmed, right?
If someone who wouldnât purchase a digital product pirates it, then itâs less obvious whether the creator got harmed by it. Also, to be clear, the discussion over digital ownership is still important.
Itâs got nothing to do with whether itâs physical. Cars are different from movies because the movie can be reproduced infinitely without resource cost (or, very minimal). If you steal a rental car, they have to buy a new one. If you pirate a movie, they havenât lost anything.
If you pirate a movie, they havenât lost anything.
Surely the sale of that copy of the movie has value? Otherwise if everyone pirates the movie, then they lose nothing and have no incentive to enforce that people purchase it before watching it.
There are a lot of ways to justify pirating digital content. Pretending as though digital content has no value is not one of them, unless you really and truly believe that creators of digital content deserve no compensation.
First off, I was specifically addressing your concern about the car & itâs physicality. Value of physical objects is directly related to the scarcity of the resources; digital content pricing is skeuomorphic (sp?) at best and absolute bullshit at worst.
Surely the sale of that copy of the movie has value
Secondly (and thirdly in a sec), this is the fundamental misapprehension that surrounds piracy. Each instance of piracy does not mean one lost sale. In terms of music (I read a study about music piracy a few years ago), this is rarely the case, and in fact, it was the opposite: the study found that the albums that were pirated more resulted in more sales, since the albumâs reach was extended.
Thirdly, one of the core issues with the entertainment industry at the moment is that the streaming services have no way to gauge the draw of a specific show, movie, or song, since subscribers just donât approach their subscription that way - you donât subscribe to Spotify because your want to hear Virtual Cold by Polvo; you subscribe because you want to have access to their entire collection, as well as all the other awesome 90s noise/math rock - even though, letâs be honest, you really just listen to Virtual Cold over and over.
As a result of this clusterfuck, streaming services canât correctly apportion payment to their content - they do an elaborate split of the profits. So - the best way for the âcontent providersâ (ie copyright holders) to increase profits is to reduce the amount of content on the streaming service - so the profits are spread over fewer titles.
This is massively hurting the production companies - please note none of these fuckers are getting any sympathy from me, this is just an explanation - theyâre having a hard time finding a balance between how much they can spend given that half of their productionsâ profits are pennies. (Oops, forgot one element: because of streaming tech, no one buys films in tape or DVD or whatever - which was half of a filmâs profit.) Do they make a bunch of huge budget action movie sequels that fill the theater seats? Or do they make smaller-budget films with smaller profit margins?
Itâs a shitty situation, and I donât know what the answer is - but I know that the answer isnât whatever the fuck this is. And, until they figure their shit out, Iâm just going to step outside the market for a bit.
Iâm not living in some dream world where piracy doesnât reduce profits. I know that the underground bands that I like are usually supportive of piracy because it helps them more than it hurts - and when it comes to film and TV, when those companies complain about piracy , itâs just like those bullshit shoplifting claims - attempts to turn their âline not go upâ on poor people. Piracy is a grain of sand in the Sahara - they have way bigger problems than that - though I do think increased piracy metrics might help encourage them in the right direction.
Anyway, if you got this far, I appreciate your time.
To be clear, Iâm not against piracy as a whole, but at its core if a potential buyer pirates something, then that is an opportunistic loss, and thus there exists a value to what was pirated (or rather the sale of it).
digital content pricing is skeuomorphic (sp?) at best and absolute bullshit at worst.
There are a number of ways to price digital content. You could price it based on cost of production split among an estimated number of sales plus a premium, or based on what others in the industry price it at. Regardless, to the creator of that digital content, each sale of that content has value, and while the copy itself might not, the transaction does.
Each instance of piracy does not mean one lost sale.
I âdemoedâ Minecraft before buying it, and you can bet I recommended it to others as well. There are plenty of instances where piracy can be a good thing, however I was never trying to state otherwise. In my original response, I had called out that piracy by people who would not otherwise purchase a product was less clear. There are also people who âpirateâ content theyâve already purchased, and those who pirate like I did to demo a product before buying it later. In your case, you also have a justification for it when it comes to music. However, the point was that piracy can be harmful (as is shown by my extreme example of everyone pirating something), and therefore the sale of the content being pirated has value. They arenât charging just because they feel like it, theyâre charging because theyâre selling a product, and the product had a cost to produce, even if it was mostly just an initial cost.
The debate around digital product ownership is an important one, and if youâre voting with your wallet by pirating the content, then by all means I wonât stop you. However, the idea that you arenât âstealingâ because you pirated digital content rather than purchasing a license to it is a distraction from the real problems of digital ownership that the article covers extremely well, most of which stem from lack of control over your copy of the product. Using piracy to try to effect change makes sense, but only because that piracy can harm the creators/distributors. If it didnât harm them, then they wouldnât care about the piracy and wouldnât be interested in changing.
Anyway, if you got this far, I appreciate your time.
So by that logic, if I were to hack your computer, copy the data, and put sell it to some group for them to use, would that be theft. You still have your data, you havenât lost anything directly, and while the group I sold it to may use a saved credit card or password to harm you I didnât, so would what I did be considered theft?
Similarly, if I just sold the information gained by it to advertisers, marketers, your friendly neighborhood stalker, etc⊠Would that have been theft? You werenât harmed, the demonstrably valuable information was just taken without your consent and given to a third party that wanted it.
I just wrote like a 10 page response to another comment on that same post I made so I donât think I have the energy to go too deep on this - so, to keep it short:
I was just rebutting that personâs claim that a car and a digital object have the same relationship to value, and they donât; physicality requires resources that âdigitalityâ doesnât.
I feel like you mightâve agreed with me in the second part? Or, if not, I think you managed to destabilize the entire data economy in like 2 sentences, so, fuck yeah.
Granted, I only skimmed through the article, and overall I agree with, but that headline is a nonsensical statement. This coming from someone who pirates every movie and show that isnât on Disney+. Whether you own, rent, or lend, you still had to pay for access to it. Piracy circumvents that. I donât own the rental car. If I drove off with it, is that not stealing?
There are plenty of ways to justify piracy. Thereâs a few good reasons listed in the article. I do it because switching between a dozen streaming services is too inconvenient. But even putting morality aside, that headline is just plain dumb, itâs illogical.
Edited in case this came on too harsh
Driving off with the rental car is a fine analogy if we were comparing this to not returning a DVD you rented.
But this is not that. And that is kind of the point.
Piracy is a breach of contract for sure. The point the author is trying to make is that our current licensing contracts around media are out of touch with the social contract (you pay for something, you get it).
Hence the moral hazard. So companies will flaunt the social contract (like in the case of Sony) with impunity but will get rightous as soon as people flaunt the legal contract. Itâs a double standard, where all the power is in the hands of those with the biggest legal department.
You canât define âtheftâ untill you first define justice. And if consumers and media holders canât even agree to a just system, then why bother categorizing anything as theft at all?
Oh I agree with the article as I already stated in my previous comment, and I hope people read it, because my only argument really is that it has a poor headline. The headline says that taking media that you wouldnât have owned isnât piracy (which is nonsense), the article says that piracy is justified when ownership is as nebulous as it often is with a lot of digital media these days (which I agree with).
No no, that is not what the headline says.
The headline says âyouâre told that what youâre doing is buying by the people selling you the media, but thatâs not what youâre actually doing. So, if theyâre lying to you about what youâre buying, then pirating a different thing isnât stealing the thing they are trying to sell you.â
Itâs definitely tongue in cheek and has some hyperbole in it, but that is the gist of the statement.
Maybe not that version of the thing specifically, but itâs still stealing if they ultimately created it and you obtained it ignoring their conditions for sale.
Donât get me wrong, you have a really good point. A lot of times the bootleg version of a good is better than the legal version because of the legal versionâs tos and spyware enforcing them. I just donât see how obtaining the bootleg isnât piracy/stealing. Thereâs good justification for stealing it imo (as a pirate myself), but thatâs all it is, justification. Itâs still stealing.
So I guess Iâm just being pedantic when I say I disagree with you, but realize I see where youâre coming from, and that we basically agree in spirit
I get ya. I think thereâs also a petulant sentiment of âyou donât want to play fair? Then fuck you, I wonât eitherâ
The car goes away when you drive it off. Replacing the car would take power to run multiple assembly and formation machines, and resources for each part.
When you download a movie, it doesnât go anywhere, you simply use a miniscule amount of power to make a copy.
No one has lost anything and the product is still available where it was. Copying is not theft. When you steal, you leave one less left.
How many lemmy commenters can make the same false equivalence analogy in one week?
I know, I know, I figured someone was going to bring this up, and personally thatâs part of the reason I justify my own piracy (cause Iâm broke and movie studios arenât), but two things:
The cost of creating, copying, and distributing a good isnât strictly relevant to the transaction of said good. If the original owner doesnât want me to have access to a good without paying for it, and I take it anyway, thatâs stealing. The labor and capital required to create, copy, and distribute that good isnât relevant to that transaction, only my moral justification for stealing it anyway. Which is fine, imo, just be honest with yourself. Youâre stealing, and itâs justified. Stick it to the man
Assuming that it is relevant, making digital media isnât free. I can get away with piracy only because thereâs enough people paying for the media to make it worth it for the studio. At least one other commenter pointed this out, but if everyone pirated, who would be making movies and video games? So to keep the system going, imo, only pirate if you werenât going to buy it anyway - piracy or nothin.
Youâre missing another option⊠And one that most people seem to continue to purposefully forget. When Netflix first started⊠It was a good product at a worthwhile price. Lots of people gave up pirating. Music was the same thing with Spotify and such services. Piracy is only getting worse again because the companies that âproduceâ the content canât keep their heads out of their asses and the services that cut back on piracy are now worse than what we left originally. As someone who had purchased these services for YEARS⊠Thereâs nothing but greed on their end⊠They canât be mad when people respond with their own form of greed, they made the first move here. They could have continued making money from people who otherwise wouldnât have paid. They chose this path to some extent.
I think my last sentence includes your âmissing optionâ, actually. Take streaming for example, Iâm not paying for 6 different streaming services. I canât, I wonât, and Iâm not going to juggle them every couple months either. So I pirate. Even if for some reason I couldnât pirate their stuff, I just wouldnât watch it. Either way, they donât get my money.
If everyone who would buy a digital product pirates it instead, then itâs clear that they have been harmed by the piracy. This whole âownâ vs ârentâ vs etc argument is completely tangental as is the definition of âstealâ, unless pedantry is the purpose of this post. Itâs clear that piracy can be harmful.
âBut they lost nothing physicalâ is an extremely shallow argument that ignores that not everything with value is physical. If I copy your idea as-is and make a product out of it before you, you can always come up with new ideas, right? Itâs not like you lost something physical. Clearly you havenât been harmed, right?
If someone who wouldnât purchase a digital product pirates it, then itâs less obvious whether the creator got harmed by it. Also, to be clear, the discussion over digital ownership is still important.
Itâs got nothing to do with whether itâs physical. Cars are different from movies because the movie can be reproduced infinitely without resource cost (or, very minimal). If you steal a rental car, they have to buy a new one. If you pirate a movie, they havenât lost anything.
Surely the sale of that copy of the movie has value? Otherwise if everyone pirates the movie, then they lose nothing and have no incentive to enforce that people purchase it before watching it.
There are a lot of ways to justify pirating digital content. Pretending as though digital content has no value is not one of them, unless you really and truly believe that creators of digital content deserve no compensation.
First off, I was specifically addressing your concern about the car & itâs physicality. Value of physical objects is directly related to the scarcity of the resources; digital content pricing is skeuomorphic (sp?) at best and absolute bullshit at worst.
Secondly (and thirdly in a sec), this is the fundamental misapprehension that surrounds piracy. Each instance of piracy does not mean one lost sale. In terms of music (I read a study about music piracy a few years ago), this is rarely the case, and in fact, it was the opposite: the study found that the albums that were pirated more resulted in more sales, since the albumâs reach was extended.
Thirdly, one of the core issues with the entertainment industry at the moment is that the streaming services have no way to gauge the draw of a specific show, movie, or song, since subscribers just donât approach their subscription that way - you donât subscribe to Spotify because your want to hear Virtual Cold by Polvo; you subscribe because you want to have access to their entire collection, as well as all the other awesome 90s noise/math rock - even though, letâs be honest, you really just listen to Virtual Cold over and over.
As a result of this clusterfuck, streaming services canât correctly apportion payment to their content - they do an elaborate split of the profits. So - the best way for the âcontent providersâ (ie copyright holders) to increase profits is to reduce the amount of content on the streaming service - so the profits are spread over fewer titles.
This is massively hurting the production companies - please note none of these fuckers are getting any sympathy from me, this is just an explanation - theyâre having a hard time finding a balance between how much they can spend given that half of their productionsâ profits are pennies. (Oops, forgot one element: because of streaming tech, no one buys films in tape or DVD or whatever - which was half of a filmâs profit.) Do they make a bunch of huge budget action movie sequels that fill the theater seats? Or do they make smaller-budget films with smaller profit margins?
Itâs a shitty situation, and I donât know what the answer is - but I know that the answer isnât whatever the fuck this is. And, until they figure their shit out, Iâm just going to step outside the market for a bit.
Iâm not living in some dream world where piracy doesnât reduce profits. I know that the underground bands that I like are usually supportive of piracy because it helps them more than it hurts - and when it comes to film and TV, when those companies complain about piracy , itâs just like those bullshit shoplifting claims - attempts to turn their âline not go upâ on poor people. Piracy is a grain of sand in the Sahara - they have way bigger problems than that - though I do think increased piracy metrics might help encourage them in the right direction.
Anyway, if you got this far, I appreciate your time.
To be clear, Iâm not against piracy as a whole, but at its core if a potential buyer pirates something, then that is an opportunistic loss, and thus there exists a value to what was pirated (or rather the sale of it).
There are a number of ways to price digital content. You could price it based on cost of production split among an estimated number of sales plus a premium, or based on what others in the industry price it at. Regardless, to the creator of that digital content, each sale of that content has value, and while the copy itself might not, the transaction does.
I âdemoedâ Minecraft before buying it, and you can bet I recommended it to others as well. There are plenty of instances where piracy can be a good thing, however I was never trying to state otherwise. In my original response, I had called out that piracy by people who would not otherwise purchase a product was less clear. There are also people who âpirateâ content theyâve already purchased, and those who pirate like I did to demo a product before buying it later. In your case, you also have a justification for it when it comes to music. However, the point was that piracy can be harmful (as is shown by my extreme example of everyone pirating something), and therefore the sale of the content being pirated has value. They arenât charging just because they feel like it, theyâre charging because theyâre selling a product, and the product had a cost to produce, even if it was mostly just an initial cost.
The debate around digital product ownership is an important one, and if youâre voting with your wallet by pirating the content, then by all means I wonât stop you. However, the idea that you arenât âstealingâ because you pirated digital content rather than purchasing a license to it is a distraction from the real problems of digital ownership that the article covers extremely well, most of which stem from lack of control over your copy of the product. Using piracy to try to effect change makes sense, but only because that piracy can harm the creators/distributors. If it didnât harm them, then they wouldnât care about the piracy and wouldnât be interested in changing.
Ditto.
So by that logic, if I were to hack your computer, copy the data, and put sell it to some group for them to use, would that be theft. You still have your data, you havenât lost anything directly, and while the group I sold it to may use a saved credit card or password to harm you I didnât, so would what I did be considered theft?
Similarly, if I just sold the information gained by it to advertisers, marketers, your friendly neighborhood stalker, etc⊠Would that have been theft? You werenât harmed, the demonstrably valuable information was just taken without your consent and given to a third party that wanted it.
I just wrote like a 10 page response to another comment on that same post I made so I donât think I have the energy to go too deep on this - so, to keep it short:
I was just rebutting that personâs claim that a car and a digital object have the same relationship to value, and they donât; physicality requires resources that âdigitalityâ doesnât.
I feel like you mightâve agreed with me in the second part? Or, if not, I think you managed to destabilize the entire data economy in like 2 sentences, so, fuck yeah.